The F1 Technical Developments Thread

SchumacherM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
3,632
Location
Slovenia
Car(s)
Fiat Stilo 1.8 16V
http://pic.armedcats.net/s/sc/schumacherm/2011/05/14/79532918.jpg
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
gotta give a round of applause for trying though
 

Susurrate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,380
Location
Atlanta
Car(s)
Civic
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr_Grip again.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
An F1 rear wing is hard enough to model using full CFD, you're unlikely to find anything that'll give you an accurate flow.

Which part of "i'm not looking for a professional CFD that requires 3 million dollar computers and 2 days of rendering to produce a result" didn't you understand? :/

Just wanted to have a little fun at drawing different shapes and seeing how they behave, like that iThing app, thassal.
 
Last edited:

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Which part of "i'm not looking for a professional CFD that requires 3 million dollar computers and 2 days of rendering to produce a result" didn't you understand? :/

Just wanted to have a little fun at drawing different shapes and seeing how they behave, like that iThing app, thassal.

But why would anyone write software if they knew it would give wrong answers?
 

rowd22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
654
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Car(s)
'83 Alfasud, '77 GTV

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,664
Location
HEL
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Wrong answers and approximate answers are not the same.
And as Virgin has confirmed, even the top notch professional software is currently giving "wrong" answers, so.

Making an easy to use quick aero program could be a good project for a thesis for anyone studying aeronautical engineering or something related, so maybe there was something like that. Too bad there isn't that'd be a lot of fun to play with.
 

Susurrate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,380
Location
Atlanta
Car(s)
Civic
So Red Bull are using a lower power KERS system putting out 40 kw instead of the 60 kw the other teams are using, this is all because of how they wanted to package it. So from my understanding of the rules they could run the system for 10 seconds (if it worked) as opposed to 6.6 seconds for the more powerful system, I doubt this is the case though because they are most likely running a smaller battery as part of the package. It also explains how Fernando is getting a pretty good jump at the starts when compared to the Red Bulls.
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Wrong answers and approximate answers are not the same.

Aerodynamics doesn't really 'do' approximate. Tiny variations in the flow field can dramatically alter results, so something that's being done 'as a rough estimate' is usually just wrong rather than an approximation.
 

Electric-Mayhem

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
967
Location
Denver, CO
Car(s)
Subaru WRX Wagon, Toyota Pickup Rock Crawler
Aerodynamics doesn't really 'do' approximate. Tiny variations in the flow field can dramatically alter results, so something that's being done 'as a rough estimate' is usually just wrong rather than an approximation.

You seem to think that every application out there needs to have NASA quality output. I think there would be a decent amount of interest for people who just want to fool around with a program and see "kind of" how air "might" move. I remember there being something on the school computers in Elementary school that let you "design" a car by putting wings and different body styles on.

I gather that what Mpicco is looking for is more of a toy and less for actual reference in the real world. If that is the case, "approximate" is just fine. As long as it was made clear it wasn't for reference I don't see why it would be an issue. Might get someone interested enough to actually get into it for real that wouldn't already do it. I'm guessing that even if you had a perfect CFD system, the average Joe probably couldn't even get it to work and certainly wouldn't get anything useful out of it (and with current computing power would probably get bored rather quickly).

I would liken it to Universe Sandbox (www.universesandbox.com). Its a cool program that approximates the interaction of celestial bodies. Not a perfect reference but is a cool way to let people fool around and see what "kind of" happens.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Aerodynamics doesn't really 'do' approximate. Tiny variations in the flow field can dramatically alter results, so something that's being done 'as a rough estimate' is usually just wrong rather than an approximation.

Oh for crying out loud.
I was just hoping for a software to do some drawings and say "oohh that's so cool, let me try this now", I'm not planning on making my own formula 1 car. And still, if I was, going by Virgin's example, CFD would not be my approach.
Let it go. You obviously couldn't understand why some people have more fun with need for speed than a racing sim.
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Oh for crying out loud.
I was just hoping for a software to do some drawings and say "oohh that's so cool, let me try this now", I'm not planning on making my own formula 1 car. And still, if I was, going by Virgin's example, CFD would not be my approach.

I can appreciate that, my point is not that such software shouldn't exist, merely that there's a reason it doesn't currently exist.
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I can appreciate that, my point is not that such software shouldn't exist, merely that there's a reason it doesn't currently exist.

But it does, in the form of a simple app for the iPhone, which is what sparked my questioning, and I don't see why a bigger better version couldn't exist for desktop computers, specially with so much processing power in CPUs and specially GPUs we now have.
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
But it does, in the form of a simple app for the iPhone, which is what sparked my questioning, and I don't see why a bigger better version couldn't exist for desktop computers, specially with so much processing power in CPUs and specially GPUs we now have.

Because I think to be honest the developers of CFD software have a mental block against creating easier to use less accurate software. Not saying they should or shouldn't, but that's why there is none.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Because I think to be honest the developers of CFD software have a mental block against creating easier to use less accurate software. Not saying they should or shouldn't, but that's why there is none.

Yeah, why put in the effort to make a program that is semi-accurate?
 
Top